In the Beginning

[Thief]

From another thread....I quote myself....

"Please choose....I say Spirit first.

Apparently you have not considered the difference between chemistry and what you really are.

As for God...He was not born as we are.
His beginning would different than ours.

So...if substance first, then God would have to be born......?
Really?
And how would that happen?
So then....no God.
And nothing waiting for you when you die....except a box in the ground.

Do you expect...apparently so...a spiritually minded person will let go of faith?....just because you wave your finger in the air and pronounce the word of.....'science!'....

Science cannot regress to the singularity and answer the question... 'which came first?'.

There will no experiment, no equation, no photo, no fingerprint....
There will be no scientific proclamation of God.

You have to do that for yourself."

The above was posted in response to someone attempting to use science as a crutch for disbelief.

Any comment is welcome....

 

[ImmortalFlame]

All baseless assumptions.

/thread

 

[HonestJoe]

And you seem to be using theological faith as a crutch for disbelieving science. The words "science" and "God" are pretty much interchangable in your post and it could apply to you.

The fact is that theological faith and physical science don't belong in the same field. They apply to different things in different ways for different purposes. Most people apply both to their lives to some extent.

Nobody has the answers to those fundamental questions of existance. Anyone who claims they do is only lying to themselves.

 

[Thief]

And you seem to be using theological faith as a crutch for disbelieving science. The words "science" and "God" are pretty much interchangable in your post and it could apply to you.

The fact is that theological faith and physical science don't belong in the same field. They apply to different things in different ways for different purposes. Most people apply both to their lives to some extent.

Nobody has the answers to those fundamental questions of existance. Anyone who claims they do is only lying to themselves.

Nice try.
And to some degree I must concede.
There are plenty of discussions that are interrupted by the scientifically minded...and they want proof.

I point out to them that faith is an item that does not require proof.

Then around and around we go.

So the title is...'in the beginning'...
And the basic question is.....which came first?....Spirit?...or substance?

(And I happen to love science....grew up reading encyclopedias...and such)

 

[Gjallarhorn]

Spirit is substance, and substance is spirit, and mathematics rules over it.

 

[Thief]

Spirit is substance, and substance is spirit, and mathematics rules over it.

Nope...not allowed.

For the singularity to be truly singular....no secondary points are allowed.

The instant a second point appears the singularity becomes infinity.

Make a choice.

But maybe you have...in saying one is the other.
In so doing you cannot separate your 'self' from your chemistry.
So then you will follow your body into the box, and then into the ground.

 

[outhouse]

From another thread....I quote myself....

"Please choose....I say Spirit first.

Apparently you have not considered the difference between chemistry and what you really are.

As for God...He was not born as we are.
His beginning would different than ours.

So...if substance first, then God would have to be born......?
Really?
And how would that happen?
So then....no God.
And nothing waiting for you when you die....except a box in the ground.

Do you expect...apparently so...a spiritually minded person will let go of faith?....just because you wave your finger in the air and pronounce the word of.....'science!'....

Science cannot regress to the singularity and answer the question... 'which came first?'.

There will no experiment, no equation, no photo, no fingerprint....
There will be no scientific proclamation of God.

You have to do that for yourself."

The above was posted in response to someone attempting to use science as a crutch for disbelief.

Any comment is welcome....

All baseless assumptions. yes I agree


This is a classic example of imagination of a deity to fill in the blanks of ones lack of knowledge.



There is a very clear image of how ancient hebrews manipulated their deities handed down to them when the semetic speaking people migrated to Israel.

There is a clear picture of how Israeli's compiled multiple deities into one deity.


there is a clear picture of how christians redefined the existing deity used by judaism

 

[Gjallarhorn]

Nope...not allowed.

For the singularity to be truly singular....no secondary points are allowed.

The instant a second point appears the singularity becomes infinity.

Make a choice.

But maybe you have...in saying one is the other.
In so doing you cannot separate your 'self' from your chemistry.
So then you will follow your body into the box, and then into the ground.

Then perhaps you should define your terms and not play on people's preconceptions of vague terminology, because my beliefs tell me they can both.

 

[Thief]

All baseless assumptions. yes I agree


This is a classic example of imagination of a deity to fill in the blanks of ones lack of knowledge.



There is a very clear image of how ancient hebrews manipulated their deities handed down to them when the semetic speaking people migrated to Israel.

There is a clear picture of how Israeli's compiled multiple deities into one deity.


there is a clear picture of how christians redefined the existing deity used by judaism

And this is the response of someone overlooking the obvious.

This thread is not about history.

 

[Thief]

Then perhaps you should define your terms and not play on people's preconceptions of vague terminology, because my beliefs tell me they can both.

Define .....'both'.

I was not vague in my posting.
It really is one or the other.
Spirit first....or substance.

 

[miss interpret]

this is a very interesting thread but I must confess a little to intellectual for my tastes but I would like to say I have had many people say science and faith do not go together only for them to spend days on end trying to prove how science can disprove my Faith.

 

[HonestJoe]

There are plenty of discussions that are interrupted by the scientifically minded...and they want proof.
I point out to them that faith is an item that does not require proof.

That's why science and faith don't belong in the same field. The field of stating things as being demonstratably true (or most likely) is one of science, so if you're going to make such claims, you should not be surprised to have them challenged on a scientific basis. Saying that your opinion is based on faith doesn't eliminate those challenges any more than saying "But I'm really, really sure.".

And the basic question is.....which came first?....Spirit?...or substance?

I think someone has already said that you need to defined what you mean by those two terms - they're not used consistently (especially "spirit"). By conventional definitions, I don't think there is such a thing as "spirit" so the question is moot.

 

[Thief]

That's why science and faith don't belong in the same field. The field of stating things as being demonstratably true (or most likely) is one of science, so if you're going to make such claims, you should not be surprised to have them challenged on a scientific basis. Saying that your opinion is based on faith doesn't eliminate those challenges any more than saying "But I'm really, really sure.".

I think someone has already said that you need to defined what you mean by those two terms - they're not used consistently (especially "spirit"). By conventional definitions, I don't think there is such a thing as "spirit" so the question is moot.

Your 'spirit' posted the above.

Think about it thoroughly....at some 'point'....
Energy and matter took 'form'.

The bible speaks of a 'void'....no form.

The Spirit is 'there'....and the universe begins to 'form'

In thought and feeling....Someone had to be First.
'Baseless' assumption that Someone is in control?

The question is....Spirit first or substance?
I say Spirit...as this leans to the order of things out of 'nothing'.

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

I must admit, I'm a bit confused. You've posted this in the science and religion folder, but yet it seems like you don't want either a scientific answer or scientific debate, but only religious. Is that the case?

 

[Thief]

I must admit, I'm a bit confused. You've posted this in the science and religion folder, but yet it seems like you don't want either a scientific answer or scientific debate, but only religious. Is that the case?

I happen to love science. Excelled in my class all through school.

What I'm trying to express in this thread is that distinction of Spirit.
At some 'point'...Spirit first....and substance responded.

It's that one thing, the Creator did.

Science is all fine and good. It reveals how God did it.
Eventually, we might very well find, how substance is brought to form.

 

[HonestJoe]

Your 'spirit' posted the above.

So you're referring to consciousness, sentience, that which makes us living beings rather than raw matter like rocks? In that case, I propose that the evidence we have suggests "spirit" only exists when there is matter to generate and hold it (for example our brains) and there is no evidence at all of "spirit" independent of "substance".

Energy and matter took 'form'.

Not necessarily. It is possible that everything has always been some combination of energy and matter. I know of nothing supporting the idea of anything outside or before this fundamental state we observe now.

The bible speaks of a 'void'....no form.

With respect, what the Bible says is irrelevant. You're bringing faith in to a scientific discussion (albeit a very amateur one, on my part at least).

The question is....Spirit first or substance?

On this limited definition or "spirit" and still no definition of "substance", I'm favouring the latter.

I say Spirit...as this leans to the order of things out of 'nothing'.

I'm not sure what you mean by that at all. I'd suggest that you say "spirit" because of your faith and you're only interested in the science if you can make it fit your preconceived conclusion.

 

[Gjallarhorn]

Define .....'both'.

I was not vague in my posting.
It really is one or the other.
Spirit first....or substance.

Define spirit and substance, please.

Light is both a wave and a particle, so yes, it can be "both".

 

[swamplizard]

No beginning, no ending; just now eternal, always - yes.

best from the bogs,
swampy

 

[idav]

I was not vague in my posting.
It really is one or the other.
Spirit first....or substance.

Define spirit.

Isn't spirit some type of substance? Spirit since the beginning is a substance.

Spirit as in a soul? That would be an immaterial aspect but substance came first.

 

[Thief]

Define spirit.

Isn't spirit some type of substance? Spirit since the beginning is a substance.

Spirit as in a soul? That would be an immaterial aspect but substance came first.

Can't believe unless you can put it in a bottle?

The day will come, your friends and relatives will put you in a box.

Do you really believe you will be in there?

Or would you prefer to think of spiritual life as.... spiritual life?